06/15/2026
Organizations thrive when people are willing to take thoughtful risks, challenge assumptions, and pursue new ideas. Innovation, adaptability, and continuous improvement depend on a culture where experimentation is possible.
Yet when an initiative falls short of expectations, failure is often viewed through a single lens.
That approach overlooks an important distinction.
𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹.
Some failures occur because a team made a thoughtful decision based on the information available at the time. They tested an idea, explored a new approach, or took a calculated risk in pursuit of a better outcome. The result may not have been what they hoped for, but the process generated insight that can improve future decisions.
These failures often contribute to learning. They help organizations refine assumptions, strengthen judgment, and build knowledge that would have been difficult to gain otherwise.
𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿.
𝘖𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵.
They stem from issues that were avoidable: 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗱, 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗱, 𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. When the same mistakes continue to surface without meaningful reflection or change, the organization is not learning—it is simply absorbing unnecessary costs.
𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲.
One of the most important responsibilities of leadership is recognizing the difference between these two types of failure.
When people are penalized for every unsuccessful outcome, they become less willing to take thoughtful risks. Over time, 𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄𝘀, 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗮𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀.
At the same time, treating all failures as acceptable can weaken accountability and make it harder to address recurring problems.
𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵𝘆 𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿.
They create environments where people are encouraged to experiment responsibly, where lessons are captured and shared, and where repeated mistakes are examined rather than ignored.
The goal is not to eliminate failure altogether. The goal is to ensure that when failure occurs, it contributes to learning rather than becoming a recurring pattern.
In my experience, 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲.
𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙣 𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣'𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮—𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮—𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙪𝙞𝙨𝙝 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙪𝙧𝙚.
As a leader, which type of failure do you think organizations struggle to recognize most often?
